In court tomorrow

[BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted]

Hayden versus Associated Newspapers.

The Judge? Go on guess. Mr Justice Julian Knowles.

Remember him? I couldn’t be happier.

This is according to contacts at the NZ fruit farm

Astonlegalbrain

Thank you, I'll have a read.

Fuck me, how on earth does Hayden expect to win that?! It's the DMs bread and butter, and they have real lawyers.

Is Hayden representing themself do we know?

Why is SH complaining that SH wasn't tagged in the tweet they thought was misleading (para 32 (e) as evidence of harrassment)? SH is already complaining about being the target of nasty tweets?

Can someone explain this to me as I’m feeling really thick right now but is Hayden taking the Daily Mail for reporting the news?

Yes.

Yes, to the extent that one can say the DM "report" "news".

They explained what had happened, SH doesn't like the typically DM way they explained it, and says they knew SH would be the target of harassment due to the way they reported what SH did. Rather than being due to SH doing it.

Good grief. What a numpty 🤦‍♀️

I think Hayden is saying it's not fair that people like Donald Trump Junior thought they were a twat after the reporting, which the Daily Mail should have known.

And also that it was misleading that it was because Kate called them he, as there is so much more to it than just that.

As a pp noted, this is mails bread-and-butter. Sensationalist headlines.

And they were all true. Kate was arrested and held in a cell for seven hours and part of the problem was misgendering.

The only way Hayden is going to get any thing going here is if they can leverage the sacred caste defence. Because I'm pretty certain the Daily Mail will have zillions of examples of exactly the same kind of reporting for a ton of other people.

Disclaimer - I could have totally misunderstood the entire document, as it's all couched in legalese.

I thought they did a follow on puff piece to smooth ruffled feathers - didn't work.

If Hayden loses (just speaking hypothetically here) what would then happen? Would Hayden have to pay for the Daily Mail’s legal fees? I can’t imagine that they have a great deal of money to pay for this sort of thing.

Also, I don't understand Hayden's motivation here. This is so not a long-term career (see Yaniv).

And it is trashing Hayden's own reputation.

LynnSchmob

I think Hayden is going after damages.

37(f) is going to be interesting when it's discussed in open court.

It's a bold case. Claiming that a newspaper reporting news is damaging and that if Internet nutters read the newspaper's news online and post nasty stuff then the newspaper is responsible for that.

Not the kind of thing a newspaper company can back down over. If Hayden loses the way costs are handled is going to be interesting.

At this rate, Justice Knowles will become the trans law expert and he will be VERY BUSY INDEED.

Glancing through that courts list, I'm SO glad this one is 'robed'.

I do think it's shit when newspapers and news outlets slant and twist stories, though. OTOH free press and all that. I hope Justice Knowles makes wise decisions that set good and fair precedents for freedom of expression for all.

After all, no-one has the right not to be offended.

I'm also interested in Hayden's use of the Equality Act 2010 'protected characteristic' shield. If Hayden wins on this, then so should women be able to in other cases, using the protected characteristic of sex, citing this case as a precedent.

The only way Hayden is going to get any thing going here is if they can leverage the sacred caste defence.

Something tells me that Justice Knowles isn't going to be massively impressed by the sacred caste defence. He didn't demonstrate a lot of patience with it last time.

I'm SO glad this one is 'robed'.

My first thought, too.

I think Hayden is annoyed that a tabloid used a sensationalist headline because they never ever do that so it’s definitely transphobia...

Plus the horror of including a photo

Also, Haydens track record for harassing other people is pretty grim. Does that never come up in these things????

This’ll be interesting.
Is it just booked in for the one day?

Plus the horror of including a photo

A picture is worth a thousand words. One photo of SH is enough to let everyone know the situation.

What does 'robed' mean in this context please? (other than wearing judge's robes)

Will there be a jury?